Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

BostonObserver said:
Don't forget at the time Dukakis had won the support of the bricklayer union during his re-election. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

Good call BO. The Bricklayers were going to throw their hat in with the Republicans. But then at the last second Dukakis decided to clad the building in a material the unions controlled (apparently the original design called for Unobtainium?).

Is the precast union running the show these days?
Click to expand...
LOL! Love it.
 
datadyne007 said:
cambridge_marriott.jpg
Click to expand...

THis is really brick ... just Jumbo. Why jumbo? Its cheaper than standard, because labor cost more than material cost do. Less bricks to lay, the cheaper the construction.

cca
 
Central Square community has its planning recommendations out today. Looks relatively pro-density, but also very pro-open space. Can't wait to see what awkward Corbusian result comes from the marriage of those two goals.

Main problems I see are in the details: why build a giant parking garage to mitigate construction on city lots? Why turn the lots over to public use when they're so close to the T and would be perfect for high density construction (while incentivizing density along Mass Ave only, which will lead to teardowns of historic structures, etc.)?

Anyway, here's the link
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridg...tral-Square-in-Cambridge?zc_p=0#axzz2EIRFWezA
 
The idea of two consecutive buildings being no more than 220 feet combined is a curious approach to a height limit, and may have some benefit.

Since the cost of building upward is non-linear, this may encourage a variation in building height, which is a nice side effect.

I don't know, just speculating. I don't mind tall buildings so long as the first few levels engage with the street and offer something like retail.
 
Matthew said:
The idea of two consecutive buildings being no more than 220 feet combined is a curious approach to a height limit, and may have some benefit.
Click to expand...

Couldn't this result in a race to build up? As a property owner, wouldn't you want to max out your 160' by special permit, and leave your neighbors on either side limited to only 60'? Screw them before they screw you?

If by right you can now build 80', but your abutting neighbor builds 160' and you are left with only 60' permissible; does the loss of 20' developable height constitute a "taking"? Could you sue the City for loss of property value? Why not sue your neighbor to block his/her project until you can get your own 160' project approved/built?

The whole concept of allowing/limiting development on one parcel, based on conditions existing on an adjacent separately owned parcel, is a legal quagmire.

(I applaud the work of these well intentioned citizens, and appreciate the urban texture they envision. I'm only offering a pragmatic counter-perspective to their Cantabrigian idealism).
 
Rodgers Street Park. Grass has been rolled into place. One question, "Is this it????" At this rate I may join the ranks of the PARK Haters.


Rodgers Street Park 12/6
 
Prep work for the Goggle (Sky?)bridge between Cambridge Center #4 (shown) & #5 progressing slowly. However the work between Cambridge Center #5 and #3 is in full swing. Could not get a good shot, because of the angle of the sun. Will try some morning.


Goggle Skybridge 12/6
 
The idea of two consecutive buildings being no more than 220 feet combined is a curious approach to a height limit, and may have some benefit.
Click to expand...
As PlanBoston points out, this will create a ton of new headaches. You'll be pitting developers against one another. Normally, nearby developers support density (because it sets precedent for their parcel). Now it's going to be a you win/I lose situation among abutters.
 
BeeLine said:
Prep work for the Goggle (Sky?)bridge between Cambridge Center #4 (shown) & #5 progressing slowly. However the work between Cambridge Center #5 and #3 is in full swing. Could not get a good shot, because of the angle of the sun. Will try some morning.


Goggle Skybridge 12/6
Click to expand...

This phase is called ' enabling'
 
more housing near a major transit stop. i'm for it. the architecture leaves something to be desired though...
 
BeeLine said:
Rodgers Street Park. Grass has been rolled into place. One question, "Is this it????" At this rate I may join the ranks of the PARK Haters.


Rodgers Street Park 12/6
Click to expand...

Is this going to be a soccer field? Just an open grass lawn? This is pretty disappointing, the Kendall Sq area is begging for mixed use development and more residences.
 
Its Rogers St Park, and I think the grassy plain is a holding action. Alexandria gave nearly $9 million to the city for a two acre park, and sod doesn't cost that much. I think design of the actual park is not yet done.
 
found5dollar said:
more housing near a major transit stop. i'm for it. the architecture leaves something to be desired though...
Click to expand...

Note sure how close this really is. I think Teele Square is closer to Davis Station than this is to Alewife. At any rate, Teele hands down has a far better walk.

One thing that's nice is there's a bus stop (served by a plethora of buses that use Rt 2) at the pedestrian overpass, so shitty weather commute to Alewife won't be quite so bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top